Hutchinson v. City of New York et al
| David Hutchinson |
| Ramirez, Adam Fiore, City of New York, Aristotle Psathas, Bowen, Marburg, Peter Ievold, Charles Bach, Thomas Murphy and Police Officers John Doe 1-10 |
| 1:2007cv00841 |
| February 28, 2007 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Brooklyn Office |
| Kings |
| Dora Lizette Irizarry |
| Cheryl L. Pollak |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Both |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
92
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: On 2/8/10, Magistrate Judge Pollak filed a Report and Recommendation in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), recommending that plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint for a second time to add claim s against Officers Carmello and Breston be denied as time-barred. No objections have been filed. The Court has reviewed the matter, and adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and without qualification. Plaintiff knew the identity of the officers he seeks to add as evidenced by their inclusion in paragraph 97 of the original and first amended complaint. Thus, the requirement set forth in Rule 15(c)(1)(C)(ii) of the FRCP for relation back to the original pleading is not satisfied, and the amended complaint is time-barred. Ordered by Chief Judge Raymond J. Dearie on 4/7/2010. (Chee, Alvin)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
